Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Just as the college football playoffs were supposed to resolve disputes on the proper way to crown a national champion, the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that took effect on Dec. 1, 2015 completely overhauled the sanctions portion of Rule 37, and were designed to resolve conflicts on the standards to apply in ordering spoliation sanctions. But just as the college football national championship debate seems far from settled (just ask Baylor and TCU fans last year, or Ohio State, Stanford, or Notre Dame fans this year), one recent decision indicates that neither may be the debate on the standards a federal court can employ in ruling on a spoliation motion.
Who Has Power to Sanction?
The purpose of the amendments to Rule 37(e) were, at least in part, to address parties' increased costs and burdens of overpreservation out of fear of being subject to severe spoliation sanctions from even negligent destruction of evidence. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, Advisory Committee Note to 2015 Amendments. Under the new rule, the most severe sanctions are only available if a party is found to have intentionally deprived the other side of information and the loss of evidence prejudiced the other party. The drafters wanted to create a unified standard for spoliation sanctions, and to give parties comfort that their case wouldn't be dismissed, or an adverse inference wouldn't be given at trial, if the information was not intentionally deleted or it could be recovered from another source. In particular, the drafters were attempting to resolve a circuit split and rejected the Second Circuit's decision in Residential Funding Cop. v. DeGeorge Capital Corp., 306 F. 3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002), which held that an adverse inference instruction could be given for even negligence or gross negligence.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Defining commercial real estate asset class is essentially a property explaining how it identifies — not necessarily what its original intention was or what others think it ought to be. This article discusses, from a general issue-spot and contextual analysis perspective, how lawyers ought to think about specialized leasing formats and the regulatory backdrops that may inform what the documentation needs to contain for compliance purposes.
As courts and discovery experts debate whether hyperlinked content should be treated the same as traditional attachments, legal practitioners are grappling with the technical and legal complexities of collecting, analyzing and reviewing these documents in real-world cases.
How to Convey Your Merits In a Way That Earns Trust, Clients and Distinctions Just as no two individuals have the exact same face, no two lawyers practice in their respective fields or serve clients in the exact same way. Think of this as a "Unique Value Proposition." Internal consideration about what you uniquely bring to your clients, colleagues, firm and industry can provide untold benefits for your law practice.
The ever-evolving digital marketing landscape, coupled with the industry-wide adoption of programmatic advertising, poses a significant threat to the effectiveness and integrity of digital advertising campaigns. This article explores various risks to digital advertising from pixel stuffing and ad stacking to domain spoofing and bots. It will also explore what should be done to ensure ad fraud protection and improve effectiveness.
This article offers practical insights and best practices to navigate the path from roadmap to rainmaking, ensuring your business development efforts are not just sporadic bursts of activity, but an integrated part of your daily success.